Comments

Looks like Trump has a good solution for the backlog: Eliminate immigration judges. According to the president, on May 5, as quoted in the Daily Mail (UK),other countries don't have immigration judges. The implication is: why should we?

If Trump wants to get rid of all the immigration judges, why not get rid of all the other judges too, so America won't be burdened any longer by that annoying, Inconvenient little thing known as democracy?

Looks like Trump has a good solution for the backlog: Eliminate immigration judges. According to the president, on May 5, as quoted in the Daily Mail (UK),other countries don't have immigration judges. The implication is: why should we?

If Trump wants to get rid of all the immigration judges, why not get rid of all the other judges too, so America won't be burdened any longer by that annoying, Inconvenient little thing known as democracy?

Roger Algase
Attorney at Law

Actually, I think Roger is right. In one of his first executive orders, Trump directed the DHS secretary to apply the expedited removal proceedings to the maximum extent authorized by the INA provisions, which would include all aliens who did not make a lawful entry and cannot prove to the satisfaction of an ICE officer that they have been physically present in the US for more than two years. That will greatly diminish the need for proceedings before an immigration judge.

But what about asylum applications? If an alien has been here for more than a year, he isn't eligible for asylum. Possibly withholding or torture convention relief though. The solution is likely to be sending aliens who claim a fear of persecution or toture to a refugee camp outside of the US where their claims can be processed by UNHCR.

Australia has used a similar system for many years. Illegal aliens are not allowed to apply for asylum in Australia. They are moved to an island outside of Australia. For more information, see my article, "Is Australia abusing child asylum seekers?" http://www.ilw.com/articles/2016,0815-Rappaport.pdf

As usual, Nolan makes a valid point by showing that there are limits to immigration court access undef current US (and foreign) law, especially in the asylum area.

It is also true that Trump's remarks were made in the asylum context, since that is what the "caravan" people were seeking.

But Trump's remarks were by no means limited to asylum. He threatened to "close up our country", not just the asylum courts; and to seal our borders against all immigrants, not just asylum seekers, because of the border wall issue, which also goes beyond asylum. He also implied that America does not need any (immigration) judges at all.

Asylum cases are only one part of our immigration court system, and Trump was clearly suggesting abolishing the entire system.